1  

2  

3  

4  

Dressed to Kill? 5  

Visible Markers of Coalitional Affiliation Enhance Conceptualized Formidability 6  

7  

8  

Daniel M. T. Fessler, Colin Holbrook, and David Dashoff 9  

Center for Behavior, Evolution, & Culture and Department of Anthropology 10  

University of California, Los Angeles 11  

Los Angeles, CA USA 12  

13  

14  

ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 15  

IN 16  

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR 17  

AUGUST 24, 2015 18  

19  

20  

Corresponding author: 21  

Daniel M.T. Fessler 22  

Department of Anthropology 23  

341 Haines Hall, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553 USA 24  

Email: dfessler@anthro.ucla.edu 25  

  1

Abstract 26  

Displaying markers of coalitional affiliation is a common feature of contemporary life. In 27  

situations in which interaction with members of rival coalitions is likely, signaling coalitional 28  

affiliation may simultaneously constitute an implicit challenge to opponents and an objective 29  

commitment device, binding signalers to their coalitions. Individuals who invite conflict, and 30  

who cannot readily back out of conflict, constitute a greater threat than those who avoid conflict 31  

and preserve the option of feigning neutrality. As a consequence, the former should be viewed 32  

as more formidable than the latter. Recent research indicates that relative formidability is 33  

summarized using the envisioned physical size and strength of a potential antagonist. Thus, 34  

individuals who display markers of coalitional affiliation should be conceptualized as more 35  

physically imposing than those who do not. We tested this prediction in two experiments. In 36  

Study 1, conducted with U.S. university students, participants inspected images of sports fans’ 37  

faces. In Study 2, conducted with U.S. Mechanical Turk workers, participants read vignettes 38  

depicting political partisans. In both studies, participants estimated the physical formidability of 39  

the target individuals and reported their own ability to defend themselves; in Study 2, 40  

participants estimated the target’s aggressiveness. Consonant with predictions, targets depicted 41  

as signaling coalitional affiliation in situations of potential conflict were envisioned to be more 42  

physically formidable and more aggressive than were those not depicted as signaling thusly. 43  

Underscoring that the calculations at issue concern the possibility of violent conflict, 44  

participants’ estimates of the protagonist’s features were inversely correlated with their ability to 45  

defend themselves. 46  

Keywords: coalitions; signaling; formidability; violence 47  

  2

Introduction 48  

Intergroup conflict is an important determinant of the formation and maintenance of 49  

coalitions, as individuals whose interests and affiliations might otherwise diverge often come 50  

together in opposition to the members of a rival coalition (Kurzban & Neuberg, 2005). In 51  

contexts such as warfare and political contests, coalitions form in pursuit or defense of an 52  

external incentive that can be shared among the members of the winning coalition. However, 53  

humans also avidly form coalitions merely for the sake of contests themselves, a pattern that 54  

plausibly reflects the role of coalitional behavior as a determinant of fitness in both nonhuman 55  

primates (Silk, 2007) and extant small-scale societies (e.g., von Rueden, Gurven, & Kaplan, 56  

2011), and thus its likely centrality in human evolution (Bowles, 2009). Sports teams are 57  

prototypic in this regard, and the enthusiasm with which fans of professional teams align 58  

themselves into a higher-order team can plausibly be understood as reflecting the elementary 59  

appeal of coalition membership (Fessler & Haley, 2003; Winegard & Deaner, 2010; see review 60  

in Hirt & Clarkson, 2011). At the same time, similarly reflecting the deep history of the 61  

importance of coalitions, people are exquisitely attuned to tracking markers of coalitional 62  

affiliation (Kurzban, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2001; Van Vugt & Park, 2010; Miller, Maner, & 63  

Becker, 2010; Voorspoels, Bartlema, & Vanpaemel, 2014). 64  

Underscoring the motivational salience of coalitions in everyday behavior, a common 65  

feature of much contemporary popular culture is the use of dress and other aspects of appearance 66  

to overtly advertise coalitional affiliation, with sport fandom figuring prominently in this regard. 67  

Conspicuously signaling coalition membership in any social context not composed exclusively 68  

of one’s coalition-mates may constitute both an implicit challenge to any members of rival 69  

coalitions present and an objective commitment device. An objective commitment device is any 70  

  3

action that narrows the available range of options (Fessler & Quintelier, 2013), in this case 71  

making it difficult for the individual to disavow membership in the advertised coalition should 72  

conflict erupt. Objective commitment differs from subjective commitment in that issues of 73  

sentiment are germane to the latter but not to the former – if violence breaks out, an objectively 74  

committed actor must side with his coalition regardless of how strongly he identifies with that 75  

group. This is relevant both because objective commitment devices can be observed by others 76  

(whereas sentiments cannot), and because, unlike subjective commitment, objective commitment 77  

cannot wane. Together, these make it possible for observers to predict an individual’s behavior 78  

on the basis of objective commitment with greater certainty than is true with regard to subjective 79  

commitment (Fessler & Quintelier, 2013). Hence, in situations in which one may encounter 80  

members of rival coalitions, advertising coalitional membership can both invite conflict with 81  

others and make it likely that, if conflict occurs, the advertiser will be an active participant. 82  

In situations in which conflict may erupt, actors must quickly decide whether to fight, 83  

flee, negotiate, or appease. A fundamental determinant of this decision is relative formidability 84  

(i.e., the threat that an opponent poses, determined in part by relative fighting capacity), as 85  

individuals must rapidly assess the prospective foe’s aggressive capabilities relative to their own. 86  

Individuals should therefore be sensitive to cues that reveal attributes of others contributing to 87  

relative formidability. We propose that advertising coalitional membership in social contexts 88  

that include members of rival coalitions may be taken both as an implicit challenge to rivals, and 89  

as an objective commitment device that cements the association between the advertiser and one 90  

side in any conflict. Therefore, witnessing an actor visibly advertise coalitional membership in 91  

such contexts should inflate observers’ assessments of the actor’s formidability, for three 92  

reasons. Firstly, an individual who invites conflict may be presumed to be more dangerous than 93  

  4

an individual who shies away from conflict. Secondly, individuals who are objectively 94  

committed to their coalitions, having removed the option of feigning neutrality, are more 95  

motivated to fight for their side. (Note that this will be true regardless of whether allies are 96  

present – while the enhanced formidability attributed to an objectively committed actor will be 97  

bolstered by the presence of fellow fighters, it is not inherently dependent on this.) Finally, both 98  

the willingness to risk conflict and the decision to commit oneself to one side of a potential 99  

conflict will often be indicative of an aggressive disposition. 100  

Knowing that an actor advertises coalitional membership in the presence of members of a 101  

rival coalition is one of many relevant factors when calculating relative formidability. This 102  

complex assessment must often be completed rapidly, as ponderous decision-making in 103  

situations of potential conflict can be disastrous. Complex decision-making can often be 104  

facilitated via a single representation that acts as a running tally, summarizing factors 105  

contributing to the likely outcome, and possible costs, of violent conflict. Our research group 106  

has previously postulated that, reflecting both the phylogenetic antiquity and ontogenetic 107  

ubiquity of the importance of physical size and strength in violent conflicts, these dimensions 108  

constitute the basis for a summary representation of formidability (Fessler, Holbrook, & Snyder, 109  

2012). Below we explain this logic and summarize evidence in support of it. 110  

Despite the equalizing nature of modern weapons, size and strength continue to play a 111  

role in aggressive behavior today. As is evident in martial arts competitions, height is a factor in 112  

human fighting ability (Collier, Johnson, & Ruggiero, 2012), and, correspondingly, observers 113  

assess fighting ability in part as a function of a man’s height (Sell et al., 2009). Likewise, 114  

relative size is a key factor when determining whether to escalate agonistic interactions (Archer 115  

& Benson, 2008), and, correspondingly, larger people report engaging in physical aggression 116  

  5

more than smaller people (Felson, 1996; Archer & Thanzami, 2007). Similarly, in keeping with 117  

their reduced vulnerability to attack, taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance than 118  

shorter men (Watkins et al., 2010). Parallel patterns are evident with regard to strength, a 119  

fundamental factor in men’s fighting capacity (Sell, Hone, & Pound, 2012). A man’s strength 120  

predicts observers’ judgments of his fighting capacity (Sell et al., 2009) as well as his own 121  

aggressive and self-interested attitudes and actions (Archer & Thanzami, 2009; Sell, Tooby, & 122  

Cosmides, 2009; Hess, Helfrecht, Hagen, Sell, & Hewlett, 2010; Sell et al., 2012; Muñoz‐Reyes, 123  

Gil‐Burmann, Fink, & Turiegano, 2012; Petersen, Sznycer, Sell, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2013; but 124  

see also Price, Dunn, Hopkins, & Kang, 2012 for caveats). 125  

In regard to both behavior and observers’ predictions thereof, humans thus maintain a 126  

pattern found throughout the animal kingdom wherein size and strength are positively correlated 127  

with fighting capacity. This association is reinforced during development, as children experience 128  

conflicts (including with caregivers) in which size and strength determine which party gets their 129  

way; correspondingly, even before they can speak, infants expect larger agents to best smaller 130  

agents when interests conflict (Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith, & Carey, 2011). 131  

Abstract concepts across domains have been proposed to be grounded in sensorimotor 132  

simulations drawn from relatively concrete domains of embodied experience (Barsalou, 1999; 133  

Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), and a growing literature shows that metaphorical conceptualizations 134  

can structure reasoning in threat-related domains, such as decision-making about how best to 135  

address violent crime (e.g., Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). Combined with the above 136  

observations, this suggests that, as we have previously proposed, the mind will harbor a deep 137  

association between size, strength, and fighting capacity. In turn, this association provides the 138  

dimensions for a representation that can be employed to summarize diverse factors influencing 139  

  6

the threat that an antagonist poses. In essence, a minds-eye image of the envisioned bodily 140  

features of an antagonist encapsulates evaluations of many features of the self and the other 141  

relevant to threat assessment (Fessler et al., 2012). Consistent with this hypothesis, knowing that 142  

an antagonist possesses a weapon (Fessler et al., 2012) or is inclined to take physical risks 143  

(Fessler, Tiokhin, Holbrook, Gervais, & Snyder, 2014a; Fessler, Holbrook, Tiokhin, & Snyder, 144  

2014c) increases how large and muscular observers think he is. Such judgments are likewise 145  

affected by the observer’s own physical strength (Fessler, Holbrook, & Gervais, 2014b) and, 146  

conversely, temporary incapacitation (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013a); being the parent of 147  

vulnerable children (Fessler, Holbrook, Pollack, & Hahn-Holbrook, 2014d); being in a 148  

vulnerable phase of the menstrual cycle (Fessler, Holbrook, & Fleischman, 2015); the physical 149  

proximity of one’s friends (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013b); and information regarding the 150  

effectiveness of leaders (Holbrook & Fessler, 2013) or a target’s ethnic identity (Holbrook, 151  

Fessler, & Navarrete, 2015). Complementing these findings, Yap et al. (2013) have 152  

demonstrated that leading participants to experience themselves as having more or less social 153  

power causes inverse changes in their estimates of another’s size and weight. Likewise, Duguid 154  

and Goncalo (2012) have shown that feelings of power lead participants to overestimate their 155  

own height and underestimate another’s. 156  

Understanding the representational system employed in agonistic contexts provides a tool 157  

for exploring the impact of advertisements of coalitional membership, as follows: 158  

1. If people conceptualize the relative formidability of a potential antagonist in terms of the 159  

target individual’s envisioned size and strength, and 160  

2. If advertising coalitional membership in socially heterogeneous contexts is both an 161  

implicit challenge and a corresponding objective commitment, then 162  

  7

3. Knowing that the target individual advertises his coalitional membership while in the 163  

presence of members of rival coalitions should lead people to envision him as larger and 164  

stronger than others who do not engage in such behavior. 165  

We tested this prediction in two experiments. 166  

Some coalitions exist primarily or exclusively to achieve their objectives via violent 167  

conflict. Given the above considerations, it is understandable that visible ritual body 168  

modification is more common in societies in which intergroup warfare occurs frequently than in 169  

societies that are peaceful or suffer intragroup conflict (Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007). Likewise, 170  

U.S. prison gangs engaged in endemic violent conflict employ tattoos to mark coalitional 171  

affiliation. Consonant with the signaling function discussed above, these tattoos differ in their 172  

prestige value as a function of their visibility (Phelan & Hunt, 1998): the more visible the tattoo, 173  

the stronger the challenge it presents to rivals, and the more it commits the bearer to side with the 174  

gang, and thus the greater the prestige accorded it within the group; correspondingly, tattoos 175  

correlate with involvement in violence (Bales, Blomberg, & Waters, 2013). While these 176  

examples illustrate how coalitional marking operates under extreme conditions, the 177  

aforementioned logic of signaling is not limited to coalitions that exist solely to pursue goals 178  

through violent conflict. Rather, this logic potentially applies to any situation in which there is a 179  

possibility that conflicts between coalitions could turn ugly. Although isolated incidents of 180  

violence between fans of rival sports teams have occurred in the U.S., American sports do not 181  

suffer the perennial violence that has plagued European football (soccer) matches. Accordingly, 182  

fandom in the U.S. offers an opportunity to investigate the proposal that individuals who mark 183  

their coalitional affiliation in socially heterogeneous contexts should be viewed as more 184  

formidable even when the coalitions at issue do not primarily revolve around violent conflict.  185  

  8

Because visual markers are the most common form of signaling coalitional affiliation, we 186  

sought to initially test the prediction at issue using visual stimuli. However, although clothing is 187  

a common means of signaling team affiliation, it is important that participants not have access to 188  

information regarding the target individual’s actual bodily proportions, as our prediction 189  

concerns how participants will envision the target, not how accurately they can assess the 190  

target’s physique when given the opportunity. We therefore manipulated facial decoration in 191  

photographs depicting only a sports fan’s face. 192  

The complete datasets for both studies reported in this paper are archived at 193  

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/28k1048m. 194  

Study 1 195  

Methods 196  

Participants and overview of procedure. After obtaining ethical approval from the 197  

University of California, Los Angeles Institutional Review Board, 250 adult UCLA students 198  

were recruited on the UCLA campus for a field study advertised as a survey of “Visual 199  

Inferences Across Domains,” for $3 compensation. Data were pre-screened to ensure 200  

participants completed the entire study, reported being native English speakers, and identified 201  

with UCLA. The final sample consisted of 222 adults (60.4% female; 45.5% White; 23.0% 202  

Asian; 31.5% Other) ranging in age from 18 to 47 (M = 21.01, SD = 3.55). 203  

Following the collection of informed consent, in a within-subjects design, participants 204  

rated the physical formidability of two men based on cropped images of their faces (see Figure 205  

1). The images, presented in color, were actually composites created using methods described in 206  

Tiddeman et al. (2001); each composite was composed of photos of 25 different men displaying 207  

a neutral expression (average age for each composite = 24.2 years; SD = 3.65 years for one 208  

  9

composite, and 4.37 years for the other). Both photographs were described as having been taken 209  

at a recent sports event held at UCLA. Constituting the experimental condition, one of the two 210  

faces was digitally modified, making it appear that the man’s face was painted in support of the 211  

University of Southern California, UCLA’s crosstown rival; the other face, constituting the 212  

control condition, was unpainted. Which of the two composite faces was painted was 213  

counterbalanced across participants, as was the order in which the images were presented. 214  

Participants estimated the target’s bodily muscularity, overall size, and height, in fixed 215  

order. Height was estimated in feet and inches; muscularity and overall size were estimated 216  

using 6-point image arrays (see Figure 1). Estimated physical formidability was composited 217  

using standardized values for estimated height, overall size, and muscularity (α = .70). The 218  

standardized values were calculated by subtracting the mean rating in the entire sample from the 219  

individual rating, then dividing this difference by the standard deviation for the sample. 220  

Accordingly, composite scores above zero are above average for the entire sample, and 221  

composite  scores less than zero are below average for the entire sample. The physical 222  

formidability measures were camouflaged within several filler perceptual judgments involving 223  

intuitive estimates based on incomplete information. 224  

Formidability is necessarily relative, and the threat that an antagonist poses will be a 225  

function of a variety of attributes of the self. To help gauge whether participants’ estimates of 226  

the bodily proportions of the target indeed reflect the threat that the participant views the target 227  

as posing, within a set of demographic questions we therefore asked participants “Relative to the 228  

typical person of your gender, how good at physical fighting would you be, if attacked?” (1 = No 229  

good at all / Defenseless; 9 = Extremely capable / Lethal if necessary). 230  

Results 231  

  10

Envisioned physical formidability. To compare the overall estimated physical 232  

formidability of the signaling versus control targets in this within-subjects design, the height, 233  

muscularity, and size estimate scores were first reformatted as long form variables, then 234  

standardized and averaged into a single measure of composite physical formidability (a z-score). 235  

As predicted, the target individual’s envisioned physical formidability was greater in the 236  

signaling condition (M = .07, SD = .66) than in the control condition (M = -.07, SD = .80), F(1, 237  

442) = 3.93, p < .05, η2p = .01, 95% CI = (-.275, -.001). We next conducted follow-up repeated-238  

measures ANOVAs assessing the individual dimensions of envisioned physical formidability. 239  

The target in the signaling condition was estimated to be significantly taller, but did not differ in 240  

envisioned muscularity or overall size (see Table 1). There were no effects of participant gender, 241  

or interactions between gender and condition, on the envisioned physical height, size, or 242  

muscularity of the target, ps > .12. 243  

Self-assessed fighting ability and envisioned physical formidability. Consistent with 244  

predictions, the envisioned physical formidability of the signaling target was negatively 245  

correlated with participants’ self-assessed defensive fighting ability, β = -.15, p < .03. The 246  

negative correlation between self-assessed fighting ability and estimations of the control target’s 247  

envisioned physical formidability was not significant, β = -.11, p < .10. Participants differed in 248  

self-assessed fighting ability by gender (Females: M = 3.43, SD = 1.36; Males: M = 4.15, SD = 249  

1.34), but we observed no Gender × Fighting Ability moderation of the link between fighting 250  

ability and the envisioned formidability of either target, ps > .06. 251  

Discussion 252  

Consonant with the thesis that displaying coalitional affiliation in the presence of 253  

members of a rival coalition signals a willingness, and a commitment, to engage in agonistic 254  

  11

interaction, the envisioned physical formidability of an attendee at a sporting event is enhanced 255  

when the target is a putative supporter of a rival sports team who is wearing face paint in support 256  

of his team. Bolstering the conclusion that this reflects a construal of the painted individual as 257  

more threatening, participants’ self-reported defensive fighting ability was negatively correlated 258  

with the envisioned bodily dimensions of the painted target. 259  

Though consistent with our thesis, the core results of Study 1 might be due to the 260  

influence of folk models incidental to the hypothesis at issue, such as the observation that avid 261  

sports fandom is associated with athleticism and masculinity (Wann, Waddill, & Dunham, 2004), 262  

attributes that may influence envisioned bodily dimensions without being directly tied to 263  

potential threat. Moreover, it is possible that, independent of issues of coalitional conflict, the 264  

act of simply painting one’s face in a flamboyant manner for presentation in a highly public 265  

context conveys a propensity to take risks, a trait that leads participants to envision the target as 266  

physically formidable (Fessler et al., 2014a; Fessler et al., 2014c). Lastly, half of the painted 267  

individual’s face was red, and prior research indicates that observers may view individuals 268  

associated with this color as more aggressive and dominant (Hagemann, Strauss, & Leißing, 269  

2008; Wiedemann, Burt, Hill, & Barton, 2015), an assessment that, in turn, would lead to greater 270  

envisioned physical formidability.  271  

In Study 1, we measured envisioned bodily traits, but did not directly measure 272  

perceptions of the threat posed by the target individuals, hence ideas orthogonal to violence, such 273  

as notions of athleticism, might well be involved. Moreover, although the signaling hypothesis 274  

holds that information regarding relative formidability is being broadcast, and hence is available 275  

to allies and third parties as well as opponents, nevertheless, given that our participants in Study 276  

1 were presented with a signaling target belonging to a rival coalition, it is possible that the effect 277  

  12

obtained in Study 1 does not generalize beyond the limited situation of individuals who are 278  

assessing members of an opposing faction. 279  

To address these limitations, we conducted a second study, using vignettes to present a 280  

context of political – not athletic – rivalry, one in which there is a long history of violent 281  

coalitional conflict, but in which our participants were not involved. In addition to the measures 282  

used in Study 1, we employed direct assessments of the danger that the target is seen to pose, and 283  

his intentions as regards possible violence. 284  

285  

Study 2 286  

Methods 287  

Participants and overview of procedure. After obtaining ethical approval from the 288  

UCLA Institutional Review Board, 300 adult participants living across the U.S. were recruited 289  

via Amazon’s MechanicalTurk.com survey platform for an online study advertised as a survey of 290  

“Social Intuitions from Limited Information”, in exchange for $0.25 compensation. Data were 291  

pre-screened for complete participation, repeat participation, and correctly answering a “catch 292  

question”. The final sample consisted of 265 adults (32.8% female; 77.7% White) ranging in age 293  

from 18 to 67 (M = 28.87, SD = 9.59). 294  

Following the collection of informed consent, in a between-subjects design, participants 295  

were randomly assigned to read a vignette about a fictional man who either did or did not signal 296  

his coalitional affiliation in a context of potential conflict: 297  

Since the 1960s, Northern Ireland has been plagued by violent conflict 298  

between two groups. Most members of the Protestant community want Northern 299  

Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Most members of the Catholic 300  

  13

community want Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Although large-301  

scale bombings and attacks have been significantly reduced for the past 15 years, 302  

sporadic violence continues to this day. For historical reasons, the color orange 303  

symbolizes the Protestant community, while green symbolizes the Catholic 304  

community. 305  

Jack is a Protestant who attends college in Belfast, the largest city in 306  

Northern Ireland. He enjoys soccer and avidly follows games on television. On 307  

Saturday nights, he and his friends like to watch the soccer match on TV and play 308  

darts at a pub near the university which caters to both Protestant and Catholic 309  

students. Whenever they do, Jack wears a nondescript grey tee shirt and a jacket 310  

with a soccer ball [a bright orange tee shirt and a jacket with a British flag] 311  

painted on the back. 312  

Next, participants estimated the target’s bodily traits in fixed order: height, muscularity, and size, 313  

using the measures employed in Study 1. Estimated physical formidability was composited 314  

using standardized values for estimated height, overall size, and muscularity (α = .60). 315  

Following the ratings of the target’s bodily traits, participants rated the threat that he 316  

posed: “How dangerous do you think the man might be if a fight were to break out?” (1 = Not at 317  

all Dangerous; 9 = Extremely Dangerous). To assess the possibility that participants might infer 318  

that the man’s choice of attire reflects a desire to initiate a confrontation, we asked: “What sort of 319  

intentions do you think that the man has in the bar?” (1 = Innocent / Non-violent Intentions; 9 = 320  

Extremely Violent Intentions). As in Study 1, participants rated their own defensive fighting 321  

ability, answered a suspicion probe, and were debriefed. 322  

Results 323  

  14

Envisioned physical formidability. Replicating the findings of Study 1, the target 324  

individual’s envisioned physical formidability was greater for the target in the signaling 325  

condition (M = .11, SD = .77) than for the control target (M = -.13, SD = .67), F(1, 263) = 7.60, p 326  

< .01, η2p = .03, 95% CI = (-.421, -.070). Follow-up tests assessing the individual dimensions of 327  

envisioned physical formidability showed significant differences in estimated height and 328  

estimated size according to the silhouette array, with a similar trend for estimated muscularity 329  

(see Table 2). There were no effects of participant gender, or interactions between gender and 330  

condition, on the envisioned height, size, or muscularity of the target, ps > .15. 331  

Envisioned physical formidability and self-assessed fighting ability. Envisioned target 332  

physical formidability was significantly negatively correlated with participants’ self-assessed 333  

defensive fighting ability in the sample as a whole, b = -.06, SE = .02, β = -.17, p < .01. 334  

Subsequent moderation analyses showed no significant two-way interactions with gender or 335  

condition on the correlation between self-assessed fighting ability and envisioned physical 336  

formidability, ps > .14. Nevertheless, exploratory tests showed that, within the signaling 337  

condition, envisioned fighting ability was negatively correlated with envisioned physical 338  

formidability, β = -.23, p < .01, whereas no such association held within the control condition, β 339  

= -.07, p = .45. 340  

We next tested for potential three-way interactions between participant condition, gender, 341  

and self-assessed fighting ability. In a model including participant gender, condition, and 342  

fighting ability as predictors, the interactions between these variables, and the three-way 343  

interaction term, the overall regression was significant, R = .291, R2 = .084, adjusted R2 = .060, 344  

F(7, 257) = 3.39, p < .01, and there was a marginally significant Gender × Condition × Fighting 345  

Ability interaction, b = -.18, SE = .09, β = -1.96, p = .053. Within the control condition, neither 346  

  15

male nor female participants evinced significant correlations between self-assessed fighting 347  

ability and the target’s envisioned formidability, ps > .48. Within the male subsample of the 348  

signaling condition, however, there was a strong negative correlation between self-assessed 349  

fighting ability and the envisioned physical formidability of the target, β = -.37, p < .001; no such 350  

association held within the female subsample, p = .98. 351  

Envisioned threat and violent intentions. As predicted, the target individual’s 352  

envisioned threat was significantly greater for the target in the signaling condition than for the 353  

control target (see Table 2). Likewise, consistent with the notion that participants associate 354  

choosing to display coalitional affiliation with aggression, the signaling target was rated as 355  

having greater violent intent than the control target (see Table 2). There were no effects of 356  

gender, or interactions between gender and condition, on the envisioned threat or violent 357  

intentions of the target, ps > .08. 358  

Envisioned threat and physical formidability. As predicted, envisioned target physical 359  

formidability was positively linked to perceived target threat (pooling conditions), β = .23, p 360  

< .001. Subsequent moderation analyses revealed no significant interaction with condition on 361  

the correlation between perceived threat and envisioned physical formidability, p > .09. 362  

Exploratory follow-up tests revealed that, within the signaling condition, perceived threat was 363  

positively correlated with envisioned physical formidability, β = .25, p < .01, whereas no such 364  

association held within the control condition, β = .06, p > .48. Thus, the positive correlation 365  

between envisioned physical formidability and threat observed in the entire sample was driven 366  

by the signaling condition. 367  

We observed a significant interaction with participant gender. In a model including 368  

gender, envisioned formidability, and the interaction term, the overall regression was significant, 369  

  16

R = .274, R2 = .075, adjusted R2 = .064, F(7, 261) = 7.06, p < .001, and there was a significant 370  

Gender × Formidability interaction, b = .47, SE = .24, β = .46, p < .05. Within the male 371  

subsample of the signaling condition, there was a strong positive correlation between perceived 372  

threat and the envisioned physical formidability of the target, β = .31, p < .001, whereas no such 373  

association held within the female subsample, p = .62. We observed no three-way Gender × 374  

Condition × Formidability moderation of the link between perceived threat and formidability. 375  

Mediation analysis. To assess whether the heightened physical formidability attributed 376  

to the signaling target was mediated by attributions of threat, we conducted a mediation test 377  

utilizing the bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (5,000 samples) in the INDIRECT macro for 378  

SPSS (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The signaling condition was the independent variable, 379  

estimated physical formidability was the dependent variable, and the threat score was the 380  

mediating variable. As predicted, perceptions of relatively greater threat mediated the effect of 381  

the signaling condition on estimated physical formidability. The direct effect of condition on 382  

estimated physical formidability (b = .25, SE = .09, β = .17, p < .01) was reduced with threat 383  

included in the bootstrap model (b = .12, SE = .10, β = .08, p = .22), the indirect effect of threat 384  

on estimated physical formidability remained significant (b = .11, SE = .04, β = .20, p < .01), and 385  

the confidence intervals did not overlap with zero (95% CI = [.04, .24]). 386  

387  

Discussion 388  

Reading vignettes describing a situation of political conflict with a history of actual 389  

violence, third-party observers assessed an individual who conspicuously advertised his 390  

coalitional affiliation as more physically formidable, posing a greater threat to others, and more 391  

  17

inclined to violence, than an individual who, despite having the same coalitional affiliation, did 392  

not signal it in this manner. 393  

Previously, our research group demonstrated that men’s own muscular strength is 394  

negatively correlated with their assessments of the bodily dimensions of armed individuals, who 395  

pose an implicit threat, but is not correlated with their assessments of unarmed individuals, who 396  

pose no such threat (Fessler et al., 2014b). Paralleling these findings, in the present study we 397  

found a marked negative correlation between male participants’ self-assessed fighting ability and 398  

the envisioned physical formidability of the target individual when the latter displays a signal of 399  

coalitional affiliation (and thus reveals an inclination for, and objective commitment to, 400  

aggression), but not when the target displays no such signal. Similarly, again only in the 401  

signaling condition, we found a substantial positive correlation between male participants’ 402  

assessments of the threat posed by the target and his envisioned physical formidability. While 403  

the basic representational system at issue appears to operate similarly in men and women (see 404  

Fessler et al., 2012; Fessler et al., 2014a; Fessler et al., 2014c; Fessler et al., 2014d), 405  

nevertheless, we can expect that, by virtue of men’s greater participation in coalitional 406  

aggression, male psychology will be particularly sensitive to factors relevant to intergroup 407  

conflict (Van Vugt, 2009; McDonald, Navarrete, & Van Vugt, 2012), and thus men will be more 408  

attuned than women to indications that a man is advertising coalitional affiliation in a manner 409  

that constitutes both an implicit challenge to members of rival groups and an objective 410  

commitment device. 411  

412  

Conclusion 413  

  18

In situations involving interaction with members of rival coalitions, individuals who 414  

overtly display indications of coalitional affiliation can be seen as simultaneously challenging 415  

their opponents to engage in conflict, and committing themselves to enter such conflict should it 416  

erupt. If violence is a possibility, those who are willing to engage in it, and are committed in a 417  

manner that makes it difficult to escape, constitute more dangerous adversaries than those who 418  

lack these properties; that is, they should be assessed as more formidable. Across two studies, 419  

using very different stimuli and quite different samples, we investigated people’s assessments of 420  

individuals who, via intentional aspects of their appearance, conspicuously advertised their 421  

coalitional affiliation in potentially conflictual situations. In both studies, we found that 422  

participants envisioned such signalers to be more physically imposing than individuals who did 423  

not advertise their coalitional affiliation, a pattern explicable in terms of the use of envisioned 424  

size and strength to summarize another’s relative formidability. 425  

Our research is subject to a number of limitations. First, given both the small number of 426  

contexts we explored and our reliance on samples from the U.S., our results should be taken as 427  

preliminary. Second, although we interpret participants’ estimates of the size and strength of the 428  

signaling targets as reflecting the workings of a representational system that summarizes issues 429  

of threat and relative formidability using these dimensions, we cannot rule out an alternative 430  

explanation, one based on participants’ possible prior beliefs. Given that, as discussed in the 431  

Introduction, bodily size and physical strength influence a man’s propensity to engage in 432  

violence and other assertive or coercive behavior, participants’ responses could conceivably 433  

reflect epidemiological knowledge derived from quotidian observations. Larger, stronger men 434  

may be more likely than smaller, weaker men to conspicuously display signals of coalitional 435  

affiliation in situations of potential conflict with rival groups, and hence participants could be 436  

  19

drawing upon past experience when estimating the target’s size and muscularity. We have 437  

previously demonstrated that accounts of this type cannot explain other applications of the 438  

representation-of-relative-formidability hypothesis, namely gun ownership (Fessler et al., 2012) 439  

and risk-proneness (Fessler et al., 2014a). Nevertheless, we cannot rule out such an explanation 440  

here, hence future investigations should address this question. Third, because men pose a greater 441  

threat of violence than do women, we limited our stimuli to male targets, reasoning that such 442  

stimuli should present the clearest test of participants’ predicted reactions to signals of 443  

coalitional affiliation. Although prior research indicates that the same representational system is 444  

employed in assessments of both male and female targets (Fessler et al. 2014a; Fessler et al. 445  

2014c), and although our theory of objective commitment and dispositional cuing predicts that 446  

responses to coalitional signals should apply to actors of both sexes, nevertheless, because we 447  

did not employ female targets in our experiments, this possibility remains unexplored at present. 448  

Fourth, given the preliminary nature of our investigation, we have favored experimental control 449  

over ecological validity, hence our stimuli and dependent measures are considerably removed 450  

from real-world interactions. In the future, it will be important to determine whether actual 451  

behavior toward target individuals is influenced by the latter’s signaling of coalitional affiliation 452  

in socially heterogeneous contexts, and whether such behavior is undergirded by representations 453  

of relative formidability. Relatedly, given the size and cultural plurality of contemporary 454  

industrialized nations such as the U.S., and the correspondingly broad range of coalitions, absent 455  

compellingly salient contexts of rivalry such as athletic or political contests, the average person 456  

may well be relatively indifferent to signals of coalitional affiliation. Identifying the boundary 457  

conditions, and determinants thereof, of the phenomenon at issue will therefore be important. 458  

  20

Although prior work summarized in the Introduction indicates that both envisioned size 459  

and envisioned muscularity are used to represent relative formidability, in the present studies, 460  

only the target’s envisioned stature/size displayed the predicted pattern, with envisioned 461  

muscularity not differing across conditions in Study 1, and displaying only a trend in the 462  

predicted direction in Study 2. Given that stature is associated with both dominance and 463  

prestige, while muscularity is more clearly linked to dominance (reviewed in Blaker & Van 464  

Vugt, 2014), might participants be construing targets who signal coalitional affiliation not as 465  

more formidable, but as more prestigious? This is unlikely given that a) the target in Study 1 466  

was a member of a rival coalition, making participants more likely to disparage than admire him, 467  

and b) per predictions, the target in Study 2 was viewed as prone to violence, a characteristic 468  

generally antithetical to prestige. The prior literature on representations of formidability 469  

indicates that the precise relationships between envisioned height, envisioned size, and 470  

envisioned muscularity fluctuate somewhat from study to study, most likely reflecting noise. If 471  

so, then future experiments, employing larger samples and a broader range of stimuli, should 472  

reveal that targets who signal coalitional affiliation in potentially conflictual contexts are 473  

conceptualized as both larger and more muscular. 474  

Although the propensity for violence reduces prestige in most contexts, situations of 475  

actual or potential agonistic intergroup conflict are a prominent exception. As evidenced by the 476  

status implications of different types of tattoos among gang members, in violent intergroup 477  

conflict prestige is frequently assigned to in-group members who evince properties of value in 478  

combat, including both objective commitment to the in-group and aggressive propensities. The 479  

present research examined assessments of a rival out-group member (Study 1) and a contestant in 480  

a conflict to which the observer is not a party (Study 2); hence, these investigations do not afford 481  

  21

examination of the assignation of prestige to in-group members during conflicts. In conducting 482  

such research, it will be important to measure both perceived threat and prestige in addition to, 483  

and independent of, envisioned physical formidability, as prior research indicates that, consonant 484  

with a phylogeny wherein hominid hierarchies have largely shifted from a dominance basis to a 485  

prestige basis, the same representational system employed to summarize formidability can also 486  

be used to represent prestige (Holbrook et al., under review). 487  

If supported by subsequent research, there are numerous implications to our conclusion 488  

that observers’ impressions of the bodily dimensions of those who conspicuously display 489  

coalitional affiliation reflects their assessments of the threat that such actors pose by virtue of 490  

intent, inclination, and objective commitment. For example, this could offer an unobtrusive 491  

avenue for investigating the extent to which the potential for aggression may lurk behind such 492  

seemingly innocuous actions as consumer displays of brand loyalty – a behavior that, in at least 493  

some instances, can lead to violent coalitional conflict (Ewing, Wagstaff, & Powell, 2013). 494  

Ultimately, a fuller understanding of the impact of indices of coalitional affiliation may enhance 495  

our ability to predict when and where violence will break out, potentially affording preventative 496  

measures in a wide variety of contexts. 497  

498  

499  

Acknowledgments 500  

We thank our research assistants and Marcus Dashoff for their help, are grateful to Benedict 501  

Jones for supplying the composite facial images used in Study 1, and thank John Archer and two 502  

anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback. This research was supported by U.S. Air Force 503  

Office of Scientific Research Award No. FA9550-10-1-0511. 504  

  22

505  

Conflict of Interest 506  

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. 507  

508  

References 509  

Archer, J., & Benson, D. (2008). Physical aggression as a function of perceived fighting ability 510  

and provocation: An experimental investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 9-24. doi: 511  

10.1002/ab.20179 512  

Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2007). The relation between physical aggression, size and strength, 513  

among a sample of young Indian men. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 627-514  

633. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.005 515  

Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2009). The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical 516  

aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men. Evolution and Human 517  

Behavior, 30, 315-321. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.003 518  

Bales, W. D., Blomberg, T. G., & Waters, K. (2013). Inmate tattoos and in-prison and post-519  

prison violent behavior. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 20-31. doi: 520  

10.6000/1929-4409.2013.02.4 521  

Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660. 522  

  23

Blaker, N. M., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The status-size hypothesis: how cues of physical size and 523  

social status influence each other. In J. Cheng, J. Tracey, & C. Anderson (Eds.) The 524  

Psychology of Social Status (pp. 119-137). New York: Springer. 525  

Bowles, S. (2009). Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution of human 526  

social behaviors? Science, 324(5932), 1293-1298. doi: 10.1126/science.1168112 527  

Collier, T., Johnson, A. L., & Ruggiero, J. (2012). Aggression in mixed martial arts: An analysis 528  

of the likelihood of winning a decision. In R. T. Jewell (Ed.), Violence and Aggression in 529  

Sporting Contests (pp. 97-109). New York: Springer. 530  

Duguid, M. M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). Living large: The powerful overestimate their own 531  

height. Psychological Science, 23, 36-40. doi: 10.1177/0956797611422915 532  

Ewing, M. T., Wagstaff, P. E., & Powell, I. H. (2013). Brand rivalry and community conflict. 533  

Journal of Business Research, 66, 4-12. 534  

Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and 535  

interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34, 433-452. 536  

Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013a). Bound to lose: Physical incapacitation increases the 537  

conceptualized dimensions of an antagonist in men. PLoS ONE, 8, e71306. 538  

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071306 539  

Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013b). Friends shrink foes: The presence of comrades 540  

decreases the envisioned physical formidability of an opponent. Psychological Science, 24, 541  

797-802. doi: 10.1177/0956797612461508 542  

  24

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., & Fleischman, D. S. (2015). Assets at risk: Menstrual cycle 543  

variation in the envisioned formidability of a potential sexual assailant reveals a component 544  

of threat assessment. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology. 1:270-290. 545  

doi:10.1007/s40750-014-0006-0 546  

Fessler, D. M. T., & Quintelier, K. (2013). Suicide bombings, weddings, and prison tattoos: An 547  

evolutionary perspective on subjective commitment and objective commitment. In K. 548  

Sterelny, R. Joyce, B. Calcott, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Cooperation and its evolution (pp. 459-549  

483). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 550  

Fessler, D. M. T., Tiokhin, L., Holbrook, C., Gervais, M., & Snyder, J. K. (2014a). Foundations 551  

of the Crazy Bastard Hypothesis: Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances conceptualized 552  

formidability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 26-33. doi: 553  

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.003 554  

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., & Gervais, M. (2014b). Men's physical strength moderates 555  

conceptualizations of prospective foes in two disparate societies. Human Nature, 25, 393-556  

409. doi: 10.1007/s12110-014-9205-4 557  

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., & Snyder, J. K. (2012). Weapons make the man (larger): 558  

Formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PloS ONE, 7, e32751. 559  

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032751 560  

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., Tiokhin, L. B., & Snyder, J. K. (2014c). Sizing up Helen: 561  

Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances the envisioned bodily formidability of women. 562  

Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 67-80. 563  

  25

Fessler, D. M. T., & Haley, K. J. (2003). The strategy of affect: Emotions in human cooperation. 564  

In P. Hammerstein (Ed.), The genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 7-36). 565  

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 566  

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., Pollack, J. S., & Hahn-Holbrook, J. (2014d). Stranger danger: 567  

Parenthood increases the envisioned bodily formidability of menacing men. Evolution and 568  

Human Behavior, 35, 109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.11.004 569  

Frederick, D. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2007). The UCLA Body Matrices II: Computer-generated 570  

images of men and women varying in body fat and muscularity/breast size to assess body 571  

satisfaction and preferences. Proceedings from 8th Annual Meeting of the Society for 572  

Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN. 573  

Hagemann, N., Strauss, B., & Leißing, J. (2008). When the referee sees red…. Psychological 574  

Science, 19, 769-771. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02155.x 575  

Hess, N., Helfrecht, C., Hagen, E., Sell, A., & Hewlett, B. (2010). Interpersonal aggression 576  

among Aka hunter-gatherers of the Central African Republic. Human Nature, 21, 330-354. 577  

doi: 10.1007/s12110-010-9094-0 578  

Hirt, E. R., & Clarkson, J. J. (2011). The psychology of fandom: Understanding the etiology, 579  

motives, and implications of fanship. In L. R. Kahle & A. Close (Eds.), Consumer behavior 580  

knowledge for effective sports and event marketing (pp. 59-85). New York: Routledge. 581  

Holbrook, C., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2013). Sizing up the threat: The envisioned physical 582  

formidability of terrorists tracks their leaders’ failures and successes. Cognition, 127, 46-583  

56. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.002 584  

  26

Holbrook, C., Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2015). Stature or danger: Racist stereotypes 585  

moderate the conceptual links between threat, social status, and physical size. Manuscript 586  

submitted for publication. 587  

Kurzban, R., & Neuberg, S. (2005). Managing ingroup and outgroup relationships. In D. M. 588  

Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 653-675). Hoboken, NJ: John 589  

Wiley & Sons Inc. 590  

Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and 591  

social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 98, 15387–15392. 592  

doi: 10.1073/pnas.251541498 593  

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 594  

McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology of 595  

intergroup conflict: The male warrior hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 596  

Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 670-679. 597  

Miller, S. L., Maner, J. K., & Becker, D. V. (2010). Self-protective biases in group 598  

categorization: Threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them”. 599  

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 62-77. doi: 10.1037/a0018086 600  

Muñoz-Reyes, J. A., Gil-Burmann, C., Fink, B., & Turiegano, E. (2012). Physical strength, 601  

fighting ability, and aggressiveness in adolescents. American Journal of Human Biology, 602  

24, 611-617. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22281 603  

  27

Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of 604  

politics: Upper body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic 605  

redistribution. Psychological Science, 24, 1098-1103. doi: 10.1177/0956797612466415 606  

Phelan, M. P., & Hunt, S. A. (1998). Prison gang members' tattoos as identity work: The visual 607  

communication of moral careers. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 277-298. 608  

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and 609  

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 610  

879-891. 611  

Price, M. E., Dunn, J., Hopkins, S., & Kang, J. (2012). Anthropometric correlates of human 612  

anger. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 174-181. 613  

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.08.004 614  

Sell, A., Hone, L. S. E., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human 615  

males. Human Nature, 23, 30-44. doi: 10.1007/s12110-012-9131-2 616  

Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., Von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human 617  

adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and 618  

face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 575-584. doi: 619  

10.1098/rspb.2008.1177 620  

Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. 621  

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 15073-15078. 622  

doi:10.1073/pnas.0904312106 623  

  28

Silk, J. B. (2007). Social components of fitness in primate groups. Science, 317, 1347-1351. doi: 624  

10.1126/science.1140734 625  

Sosis, R., Kress, H. C., & Boster, J. S. (2007). Scars for war: Evaluating alternative signaling 626  

explanations for cross-cultural variance in ritual costs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 627  

234-247. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.02.007 628  

Thibodeau, P.H. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphors in 629  

reasoning. PLoS ONE. 6, e16782. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016782. 630  

Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M. C., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: 631  

Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477. doi: 632  

10.1126/science.1199198 633  

Tiddeman, B., Burt, M., & Perrett, D. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for 634  

perception research. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 21, 42-50. 635  

Van Vugt, M. (2009). Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare. Annals 636  

of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 124-134. 637  

Van Vugt, M., & Park, J. H. (2010). The tribal instinct hypothesis: Evolution and the social 638  

psychology of intergroup relations. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), The psychology of 639  

prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 13-32). 640  

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 641  

von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to 642  

dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 643  

2223-2232. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2145 644  

  29

Voorspoels, W., Bartlema, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2014). Can race really be erased? A pre-645  

registered replication study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, e1035. doi: 646  

10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01035 647  

Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., & Dunham, M. D. (2004). Using sex and gender role orientation to 648  

predict level of sport fandom. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, 367-377. 649  

Watkins, C. D., Fraccaro, P. J., Smith, F. G., Vukovic, J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., & 650  

Jones, B. C. (2010). Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. 651  

Behavioral Ecology, 21, 943-947. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq091 652  

Wiedemann, D., Burt, D. M., Hill, R. A., & Barton, R. A. (2015). Red clothing increases 653  

perceived dominance, aggression and anger. Biology Letters, 11, 20150166. doi: 654  

10.1098/rsbl.2015.0166 655  

Winegard, B., & Deaner, R. O. (2010). The evolutionary significance of Red Sox Nation: Sport 656  

fandom as a byproduct of coalitional psychology. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 432-446. 657  

Yap, A. J., Mason, M. F., & Ames, D. R. (2013). The powerful size others down: The link 658  

between power and estimates of others’ size. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 659  

49, 591-594. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.003 660  

 661  

662  

663  

  30

Table 1 664  

Mean Estimated Height, Size, and Muscularity (Study 1) 665  

Signaling

Mean (SD)  

Control

Mean (SD)  

F

p

η2p

Height 70.40 (2.12) 68.03 (5.52) 47.47 <.001 .18

Size 3.90 (.96) 3.98 (.88) 1.95 .164 .01

Muscularity 2.47 (.83) 2.50 (.88) .50 .482 .00

Note. N = 222. Estimated heights are in inches. 666  

 667  

 668  

 669  

 670  

 671  

 672  

 673  

 674  

 675  

 676  

 677  

 678  

 679  

 680  

 681  

682  

  31

Table 2 683  

Mean Estimated Height, Size, Muscularity, Threat, and Violent Intent (Study 2) 684  

Signaling

Mean (SD)  

Control

Mean (SD)  

F

p

η2p

95% CI

Height 71.34 (2.42) 70.73 (2.33) 4.34 .038 .02 -1.184, -.033

Size 4.12 (.81) 3.89 (.83) 5.04 .026 .02 -.425, -.028

Muscularity 2.36 (.95) 2.17 (.74) 3.13 .078 .01 -.392, .021

Threat 3.45 (1.35) 2.28 (1.03) 62.10 <.001 .19 -1.455, -.873

Violent Intent 3.24 (1.40) 1.78 (1.00) 94.37 <.001 .26 -1.755, -1.164

Note. N = 265. Estimated heights are in inches. 685  

686  

687  

688  

689  

690  

691  

692  

693  

694  

695  

696  

697  

  32

Figure 1. Top: In Study 1, two different composite faces were presented in color with or without 698  

University of Southern California (USC) facepaint; one such pair is depicted here. Middle: 699  

Array used by participants in Studies 1 and 2 to estimate overall size. Bottom: Array used by 700  

participants in Studies 1 and 2 to estimate muscularity; modified with permission from Frederick 701  

and Peplau (2007). 702  

 703